Seen any good films lately? [3]

Pretty much my evaluation, and very good point about the problem to be solved being transferred from human relations to finding a bank note - I didn't quite realize before how much that weakened it. I didn't catch on that the missing document was on the kite, so perhaps not as obvious as you may think, but as you pointed out the real problem was with the choice of the problem, not the resolution which was doomed to be cheap from the beginning once it became physical rather than relationship based.

I haven't read the books, but from what I have read P.L. Travers was somewhat put out that Julie Andrews Mary Poppins was warmer than the books, with none of the crustiness that Emily Blunt brought back.  I'm thinking Blunt's Poppins may actually be closer to the book.  Though I thought her character portrayal was on point, it's hard to tell if her lesser vocal talents (but not at all bad!) were a problem given the music she had to work with.

For me the main failure was the music.  As just noted it wasn't bad, but it wasn't the earworms the original produced.  I thought the music hall song about books was pretty good as well as the lamplighters, but I can't for the life of me remember any of those melodies right now.  In the original the songs stick in your head and never leave - inspired genius.  Do we have any equivalent to the Sherman Brothers working today?  i think not.  Disney had an incredible ability to find song writing talent, in fact I'd put this up there with the animation talent as what made the studio a success.

{{I have never read the books either, though I suspected whilst watching her performance might be closer to page than Andrews. Trouble is i dont think it counts here. As far as I can tell this film is not based on any particular book- none is credited in the titles anyway just Travers name and an 'inspired by' or based on' or some such vagueness. And the efforts the film goes to to recreate not the books but the original film I felt put it more in the territory of being a film sequel to a film than an adaption of a written work.
Had it been a clean reboot, reimagined, with all new designed sets and locations then doing a different take on Mary makes sense- but when they go to such lengths to set it up as a sequel to one particular version, then change just that one central aspect, its a bit odd. }}

thanks for the review Petty. I can understand why they went for the posh spoken Emily Blunt, but she has a certain cold fish-eyed look on her face which doesn't make me warm to her. But nobody could replace Julie Andrews.

Saw Mortal Engines: a nice spectacle film for the big screen (Christian Rivers directed), though the script and story were so-so (adapted by the Coven). Good popcorn movie. Rivers has learned his new craft well; the storyboarding from him of course would be top-notch but he also got good performances from the actors. The only time my eyes came close to rolling was when I realized at the end that all our colored characters had nobly sacrificed themselves so our white leads could live. Okay, maybe when the beautiful young daughter declares "he is no longer my father" my eyes rolled. But these were minor items in an otherwise very watchable film.

Watched They shall not get old. Very very good.

watched Infinity War, they had everyone and the kitchen sink. strangely I watched it to the end.

Only just watched this. I liked it and would watch it again. Got it on blu-ray for $8 that's 4 quid in English. Funny I don't have a pound sign on my keyboard.

Got Scull Island (Kong) and Pacific Rim 3D for $8 each plus Prometheus on 4k for $10. DVD's pretty cheap atm. Normally $40 plus for a 4k film.
Only other 4k film I have is Blade Runner (the new one) Thought it looked pretty average so i didn't bother buying any more.
After watching a clip on Youtube i realized i had the settings wrong. Heaps better now.

chris63 wrote:Got Scull Island (Kong) and Pacific Rim 3D for $8 each plus Prometheus on 4k for $10. DVD's pretty cheap atm. Normally $40 plus for a 4k film.
Only other 4k film I have is Blade Runner (the new one) Thought it looked pretty average so i didn't bother buying any more.
After watching a clip on Youtube i realized i had the settings wrong. Heaps better now.

Blade Runner 2049 was fantastic, a visual spectacle and Harrison Ford's finest performance in years, tad overlong, but definitely a worthy follow up to the original.

Skull Island and pacific rim are solidly made popcorn flicks, dumb but fun.

That was the first effusive review of Blade Runner 2049 I've seen. May have to look that up.

I really liked King Arthur too.

I didn't like Bladerunner 2049 at all, I thought it was bloated boring bollox.

edit. but that's because I love the first one and I dislike reboots/remakes, I have never seen a reboot equal to the original.

Let Me In.

It's arguably better than the original.

Not even Terminator 2?

T1 was great but T2 was greater

But T2 wasn't really a reboot, its a series, its a continuation of the story.

I think Bladerunner 2 was not really a series as it was made 30 years later. it is a continuation of the story of Decker, but I think its a stand alone as well. like Promethius is set in that world but is a stand alone film, anywhoo, I may be digging myself into a hole with the film geeks, but I generally don't like reboots there are too many cashing in on the original.

I always prefer the first film in a series myself. Fresher. Despite popular opinion I prefer A New Hope to Empire Strikes Back and the first Harry Potter film to any that came after.

I watched "Bohemian Rhapsody". I thought it was very good, left a haunting feeling with me. The guys that were found to play Brian May, Roger Taylor & John Deacon were amazing. Rami Malek was brilliant. I loved it. I don't know if its because I grew up with Queen, & sung along at home with the records but, I felt it was the most bittersweet & haunting film Ive watched in a long while.

I saw PJ's "They Shall Not Grow Old" yesterday. It was a 200 mile round-trip but I don't regret it a bit. It deserves to be seen on the big screen, and this is as close at it will ever come to showing near me.

It's not perfect, but it's amazing! Jackson at his best given an open ended impossible task, making a coherent theatrical film using only degraded old film footage from WWI as images and soundbites from interviews with survivors as old men for the sound track. It's only an hour and 40 minutes but it feels much longer as it frankly takes you to places you might not have chosen to go (explicit details of latrines, rats and corpses for example), but all explained by old men who could have been your grandfather or great-grandfather. Looking into the young faces as they smile and wave back at you, at the same time hearing the old voices can be quite moving...

Of course PJ couldn't resist including a "making of ..." documentary after the final credits roll. It's worth staying for to see the technical magic.

Not perfect, but it's like nothing I've ever seen before.

I hadn't heard of "They Shall Not Grow Old". Typical that documentary is ignored. Wonder how I can see it.

I bet you'll get a chance if you check the schedules Halfy. Warner Bros is releasing it as a dribble rather than a flood, adding new showtimes as the first showing sells out. They seem to be marketing it by word of mouth alone for now, and I'm happy to help.

I found it. May go see it this week.

I watched a film the other day, "The Vanishing" with Gerard Butler. It was good but, gloomy. I don't think IL watch it again.

Spoiler:

 I thought Gerard Butler played his character brilliantly. Starting off happy & clowning about to his grief & paranoia. Its meant to be based on a true story but I think a lot of it was Artistic licence.

Ive also seen "They shall not grow old" advertised & Im pretty sure it was on our UK tv recently. Havent seen it but I mean to.

azriel wrote: Im pretty sure it was on our UK tv recently.

That sounds likely Jackson said a lot of the recordings of WWI survivors were from the BBC archives so it would makes sense that the BBC would have the rights to show it. PJ said he put a lot of his budget into digitizing and restoring the 100 hours of archival film footage they gave him, even if he wasn't going to use it in the movie, just so it would be preserved for posterity. You can tell this film was a labor of love, and that it's almost a coincidence that it came out good enough to show in cinemas. Almost certainly wouldn't have except for Jackson's fame and his association with the Tolkien fan base. For me it's hard to look at mud fields and the bodies sinking into them without thinking of the Dead Marshes, or to see those primitive 1st generation tanks lumbering through the trenches and not think of ancient orcish war engines.

Has anyone seen Glass? I'm considering it, but haven't heard much

David H wrote:I saw PJ's "They Shall Not Grow Old" yesterday. It was a 200 mile round-trip but I don't regret it a bit. It deserves to be seen on the big screen, and this is as close at it will ever come to showing near me.

It's not perfect, but it's amazing!  Jackson at his best given an open ended impossible task, making a coherent theatrical film using only degraded old film footage from WWI as images and soundbites from interviews with survivors as old men for the sound track.  It's only an hour and 40 minutes but it feels much longer as it frankly takes you to places you might not have chosen to go (explicit details of latrines, rats and corpses for example), but all explained by old men who could have been your grandfather or great-grandfather. Looking into the young faces as they smile and wave back at you, at the same time hearing the old voices can be quite moving...

Of course PJ couldn't resist including a "making of ..." documentary after the final credits roll. It's worth staying for to see the technical magic.

Not perfect, but it's like nothing I've ever seen before.

looking into those young faces is heart breaking really

some desperately bad teeth as well, a lot of people must have been scared to go, or maybe couldn't afford to go.